Rice v. Whitmore
Before: Belcher
Synopsis
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County, and from an order refusing a new trial.
The action was brought to recover damages for the breach of a contract of lease. On the trial, the court, at the request of the plaintiffs, instructed the jury as follows: “ If, then, you find that the contract was entered into substantially as claimed by the plaintiff, and that thereafter the defendant refused or neglected to carry out the terms of said agreement against the will of plaintiff, and you further find that the plaintiff has suffered damages by reason of said breach, then I charge you that the plaintiff is entitled in recover from the defendant all that he could have made on the ranch during that year; that is, he is entitled to the value of the crop that might have been raised on the ranch during that year by an average farmer, less the cost of raising, cutting, harvesting, etc., the same, and the amount raised, its cost of raising, etc., its value, you must ascertain from the evidence in the case. In determining the amount of damages to be awarded plaintiff, if you find in his favor, the jury should take into consideration all the facts and circumstances proven in the case, and if you find that plaintiff had the stock and utensils, etc., to work and cultivate •the ranch or any portion of it without hiring it done, that fact you have a right to take into consideration; and taking all the facts into consideration, the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount' equal to what he would have made had the contract been carried out.” At the request of the defendant, the following instruction was given: “If the plaintiff and defendant entered into the contract set up in the complaint, and you find from the evidence that there was a breach of such contract on the part of defendant, then, in assessing damages for such breach, you must not consider or assess any damages resulting to plaintiff from loss of his labor, or the loss of the use of his teams.” The further facts are stated in the opinion.
Belcher, C. C. This is an action to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract.
As stated in the complaint, the contract was made by the parties in September, 1883, and was for the lease of a certain ranch in Stanislaus County, containing about 960 acres of land. It is alleged that the defendant agreed to and with the plaintiff that he “ would rent, lease, and farm-let to plaintiff” the ranch for the term of one year from September, 1883, and would forthwith put plaintiff into possession thereof, and would accept as rental there[622]for one fourth of all grain raised on the premises during the ensuing year, to be delivered to defendant by plaintiff at a certain warehouse in Ceres. It is further alleged that plaintiff then and there agreed to accept, lease, rent, and hire said ranch from the defendant, and to occupy and farm the same on the terms and conditions aforesaid, and that the contract then and there became mutual between the parties. It is then stated that plaintiff owned all necessary teams and outfit to cultivate and farm the ranch, and that he at once commenced to make preparations to enter upon the same, but defendant neglected and refused to put him in possession thereof, and on or about the 31st of October, 1883, informed him that he would not carry out the terms of the agreement in any particular, and that he would not lease, let, or rent the ranch, or any part thereof, to him; and that by reason of such neglect and refusal plaintiff sustained damages in the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars.
The answer denies that defendant made any contract to lease the ranch to.'plaintiff, as stated in the complaint, and alleges that at the time of the supposed agreement one Hanscom was in possession of the land as a tenant of defendant, which fact was well known to the plaintiff, and the only agreement made was to the effect that defendant would lease to plaintiff, provided he succeeded in obtain-; ing possession of the land from Hanscom. It is further alleged that at a subsequent time both plaintiff and defendant became satisfied that Hanscom could not be dispossessed in time to rent the land for the ensuing year, and thereupon all negotiations for leasing it were abandoned by consent of the parties, and no lease was made or entered into by or between them.
The case was tried by a jury, and the verdict and judgment were in favor of plaintiff. The defendant then moved for a new trial, and his motion being denied, has brought the case here on appeal from the judgment and order.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)